BuggBlog

Lowering the punditry limbo bar

When some bloggers began criticizing a Commentary column that criticized Barack Obama for choosing orange juice (a "childish" drink) over coffee ("bitter and bracing"), I kind of assumed that too many people were reading a joking column as a serious rant. Then I went to read it for myself.

And it really is about the stupidest thing I've read this campaign. It may even be stupider than Fox News talking about the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Scary thing? There's plenty of room to go even lower between now and November.

Oh, the shame of heritage

Via Andrew, a Kentucky Democrat voices an opinion to The New Yorker on Clinton v. Obama:

"I really don't want an African-American as President ... I thought about it. I think he would put too many minorities in positions over the white race. That's my opinion. After 1964, you saw what the South did ... There's a lot of white people that just wouldn't vote for a colored person. Especially older people," - a Clinton supporter in Eastern Kentucky, to George Packer of the New Yorker.

I'm not sure what's sadder, the attitude represented by the thinking or the fact that my home state seems determined to be as embarrassing as possible these days. Perhaps I could take refuge in that I'm only half-Kentuckian if you look solely at my paternal lineage.

Unfortunately, my maternal lineage is in Indiana, and Hoosiers have their own problems lately.

That's MISTER Pansy to you

In a strange day of political developments, I'm struck by the reaction to the far more minor eruption in North Carolina where Gov. Mike Easley made his endorsement of Hillary Clinton more newsworthy by tossing out the loaded word "pansy."

But what strikes me more than the utterance itself is the blog posts and e-mails I've been watching that defend Hillary's defender because "pansy" isn't really an anti-gay term, or because Easley's just a humor-impaired old straight guy, or because "OMG, I didn't even know 'pansy' was a gay insult!" And, no surprise, some gay Obama supporters have been pushing the story, while some gay Clinton supporters have been pretending it's no big deal. Both of which are useless pursuits.

Anyone who votes against Clinton solely for this Easley flap probably shouldn't be voting anyway because it kind of indicates a lack of any sort of critical thought about either candidate; the same goes for anyone who votes against Obama because of Rev. Wright or some other supposed "surrogate." There are far bigger issues at stake, and far better arguments for both candidates.

But. But, but, but.

As a 40 year old gay guy with strong memories of how homosexuals were verbally degraded in my rural Kentucky hometown -- faggot, queer, pansy, homo, etc. -- and even stronger memories of those words and others being used against me in college and beyond, the dismissal by some of a pretty nasty little word strikes me as a pretty egregious case of granting an exception for political purposes. I've watched the gay community over the past few years rear itself up with righteous dudgeon over the use of the word "gay" by pre-teens. Yet the 50-something Democratic governor of a southern state gets a pass with a wink and nod? Isn't he the one who should know better? Isn't he the one we should be holding accountable?

Maybe we should come up with a list of words that are acceptable and those that are not. "Pansy" = okay. "Faggot" = off limits. "Cocksucker" = depends on the context.

The idea that Clinton should have reacted immediately and cast Easley aside to give some soul-stirring speech denouncing the history of the word pansy is, frankly, silly. But the idea that we as a community should react with no more than a laugh and a wave of the hand is disheartening.

No surprise here

I generally spend a fair amount of time reading "conservative" web sites, mostly just to keep up with what's going on, etc. But as of late I've taken a breather, given that the Democratic race seems to have driven the right wing to out-and-out insanity. That and the pope's visit proved that Katherine Jean Lopez really could get stupider.

But I cruised by tonight, curious to see what was up in winger-land after Obama denounced Wright today. Right at the top was this excrescence from Kate O'Beirne, under the title "October Suprise?":

An interview with Jeremiah Wright during which he recounts past conversations with Barack Obama about the young aspiring politician's views on race and whites and his mixed feelings about his country.  i.e. Don't Democrats have to sweat out this angry, arrogant wild card who could destroy the Obama campaign at will?

If they're this unhinged and desperate in April, imagine what they'll be like come September. It's going to be a long, long summer, whether or not Hillary pulls off her heist.

Please, please, please let it be over soon

It's been a long day on deadline, so I'm going to settle in for a little relaxing session of Rock Band before I get too deep into the final day of the campaign to be president of Pennsylvania. But I did just catch Hillary on CNN asking why, with his enormous fundraising advantage and lead in votes, Obama "hasn't been able to close the deal?"

Oh, good lord. It does get stupider by the day. But I'll bite. Why couldn't Clinton, with her huge, experienced machinery and out-of-the-gate fundraising edge, close the nomination by Super Tuesday, the way she had planned to from the start?

Add that to her husband Bill claiming that he didn't say Obama's campaign played the race card when there's an audio tape of a radio interview in which he claimed Obama's campaign played the race card and I just wonder why it is that we're still having to have this debate. Do we really want this dynamic duo back in the White House?

I'm exhausted already just thinking about it.

Moments of (un)truth

Watching Hillary Clinton defend her previous pro-McCain commander-in-chief comments to Keith Olbermann and once again witnessing  her easy ability to elide the truth -- okay, flat-out frickin' lie -- makes it ever more impossible for me to vote for her.

Update: She laughs at the mention of Richard Mellon Scaife? The man who propagated the myth that she had Vince Foster killed? She thinks that's humorous? Jesus frickin' Christ. She must, must go.

Bitter, better...but her?: Liveblogging the PA debate

Seize the sleaze!

When family members back home tell me how much they dislike -- even hate -- politics, I can thank amoral political hacks like Douglas E. Schoen. An adviser to Bill Clinton post 1994 -- the era of Dick Morris -- Schoen today in the Post advocates Hillary Clinton taking a scorched earth policy to somehow breath life into her lost campaign.

Although voters and the media look favorably upon a positive campaign message, and Clinton is acutely conscious that too much negativity and too many personal attacks will hurt her party in November, a positive message is simply not enough to alter the race at this point. It is too late for Clinton to wait for Obama to make another mistake. She must seize the opportunity that Obama's self-acknowledged mistakes last week presented to her campaign; it is almost certainly her last chance.

So the advice is that even though going negative and personal could cost the Democrats the race in November, Clinton should go ahead and do it anyway because this race is all about her, regardless is she's run a losing campaign from Day 1. Of course, this would all just be mildly amusing if it didn't look like she was about to do exactly this.

Leaving aside my biases in this race, I'm not some political Pollyanna who thinks that all campaigns should be conducted at a tone appropriate for serving tea. Politics is a rough business -- it should be, given the importance of the ideas, values and expectations at stake. But that's not reflected in shots of Crown Royal and endless repetitions of "I'm not bitter!" All that's doing is laying the groundwork to -- pardon the cliche, but it's appropriate -- snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

With the issues at stake in this election -- war, executive abuse of powers, suspension of basic civil liberties -- it's disappointing, sad and infuriating that Clinton would choose to run a campaign based on a solipsism.

Full court press

Following up on its attention-grabbing antics of last week when it ran a blank stretch of space on its front page to emphasize the Obama campaign's decision not to do an interview with the paper, the Philadelphia Gay News continues its campaign this week with the front page with the complaint that it's been "1,529 days" since Obama interviewed with the "local gay press."

The complaint last week in a PGN editorial was  that "It has now been 1,522 days since Obama has been accessible to our community." Now that the Advocate has snagged an interview with him, the PGN complaint has shifted, essentially, to kvetching that Barack Obama won't interview with me!

PGN publisher Mark Segal, in a press release this morning highlighted four "questions of importance to the LGBT community of Pennsylvania":

1. Why has he not spoken with local gay media in 1529 days?

2. Why has he accepted only two interviews with gay media since 2004?

3. Why interview only with gay media when in damage control now that the national LGBT press is urging you to talk to us, not at us?

4.  Finally, with all due respect Senator, you've now avoided answering the single most important question which PGN readers must ask. The LGBT community of Pennsylvania wants to know your stand on the anti gay marriage state constitutional legislation currently before the Pennsylvania Senate.

You know, when three of your four "important" questions are essentially re-phrased versions of Barack Obama won't interview with me! then there's a bit of a substance problem to the complaint. The idea that we don't know anything about Obama's positions on GLBT issues -- or, conversely, that we now have some special insight into the mind of Hillary Clinton because she interviewed with PGN or Kevin Naff at the Blade -- is a non-starter because the positions have been spelled out, they've been discussed in public events, and they've been covered in press both mainstream and niche. And if you're a reporter who wants to know a candidate's position on a particular issue -- say, a Pennsylvania anti-marriage amendment -- you call the campaign office, ask them, and report the response (or non-response).

Tempest? Meet the teapot.

A renaissance of fair

The Washington Post reports today from Indiana, where the political mechanics of the state -- next door to Obama's Illinois stronghold, but a political apparatus aligned with the Clinton machine -- make for a close race. Writes Anne E. Kornblut:

Something unusual appears to be developing in the Democratic presidential race in this state: a fair fight.

What on earth does that mean? That primaries in states where demographics are favorable to one candidate or the other are unfair? That voters who pay attention and weigh their options early in the process are being unfair compared to those undecided voters who tune in during the final moments? That a state only counts if the press gets to write breathless "too close to call" stories? That the previous primaries and caucuses that put Barack Obama in the lead were somehow unfair to Hillary Clinton?

Honestly, I've written stuff like this before for the magazine: A lead that just sounds so good you miss the fact that it's fundamentally senseless. Usually a fellow editor or writer saves me from myself. Too bad someone at the Post didn't do that for Kornblut here.